Mohamed's surah 2 back-pedal.

[KWED]

You are on a mission. You have set up a shop and you are here to stay!

Always pleases me when apologists posting on debate forums criticise sceptics for posting on debate forums.

Do you hear yourself before writing?

I suspect I will be hearing my ACME Irony-o-Meter™ beeping in a minute...

We are not talking about every single issue that Islam is all about. We are discussing one misunderstood verse by OP and then you jumped on the bandwagon.

OK. So you are claiming that all 1.8 billion Muslims have the same conclusions about what verses 2:49-2:71 mean.
Really?
You do realise that many millions of Muslims have never even read the Quran?

1.8 billion Muslims and most other people in the world will have the same conclusion

Wow! It gets worse. We have already seen several different opinions here.

regarding OP that it is acceptable to say it like that especially when it is clarified in latter verses that ALL Jews are not the one to be blamed. The act is criticized via example of similar nature ...NOT the people! You are not comprehending that! It is the "ACT" that is criticized!
You can be given the example of your forefathers if you continue on the same path as they have been on. It is the act that has been emphasized via example!

Yes, that is one possible interpretation. But not the only one.

You can believe in any God or multiple gods and I could believe in any God as well but when we say the word "God" - we usually mean our creator who created us -

So when you say "us" and "our", who are you referring to? You and me? That certainly doesn't work. How about you and Hindus. Nah, that doesn't fit either. In fact, most of the religions that there are now, or have ever been, would probably disagree with your definition of "god".

By asking you - I just wanted to see what makes sense to you because you are caught up on a simple thing here. I wanted to see what your doctrine (if any) looks like. Anyhow, no need to share if not revealing it was your intention in the first place as I see you are just beating around the bush! You may not be affiliated with any religion but you can still believe in a creator who created you and you can still consult some doctrines from various religion. I just wanted see which ones you are consulting (if any).

Like so many apologists, you just assume that "god" is what you assume it to be. You reject, by default, and version of "god" that does not correspond to yours. A schoolboy error, WADR.

Think of an owner of a manufacturing company with 6,236 workers - should he shut down the company if one of his workers comes up to him and say something he didn't understand? Should he disregard all other workers? That is what you are doing. The Quran has 6,286 verses. Move on and check out other verses.

To use your (somewhat flawed) analogy, to is like an employer pointing out a potential problem with the production process, and the owner simply rejecting it because the process is "perfect" and cannot have any flaws.

Or perhaps a government official rejecting Edward Jenner's proposal because everyone agrees that smallpox was a curse from god and therefore couldn't be treated.

Every religion has many things that you can learn.

Like what? Name something practical and beneficial to society that has come from religious belief in the supernatural.

If something is not making sense - doesn't mean you have to discard everything!

If something does not make sense, we need to examine it in more detail. If it still makes no sense, we should relegate it to the "unknown" basket. We certainly shouldn't insist that it is true, despite it not making sense.

You are way off. Nobody has a free pass.

I didn't say anyone has a "free pass". Even the easiest path to paradise still requires the you first be born into a Muslim family, and second that you don't learn to think outside the box of childhood indoctrination and cultural dogma.

If Islam is the true religion then Muslims can actually be held on higher standards (in my opinion).

In what way? Higher standards of tolerance for other people's beliefs and lifestyles?
Higher standards of evidence for their extraordinary claims?
What, exactly?

Many Muslims in todays world IMO are totally lost inside their own fence especially the ones who claim to be with different sects.

Ah, so you are a fan of sectarianism.
So which sect do you belong to, and why is your sect true while the others are false?

Quran clearly advocates against sects and splitting into groups.

Does it?
By stating that Islam will fragment into sects, Allah has made that future inevitable.
If he had said in the Quran "Islam will maintain as one, whole undivided group in agreement until judgement day", that would have been what would have happened. Therefore no sects.
Therefore sects are Allah's doing.
QED.

So, in my opinion if anyone proudly distinguish themselves in a category other than just a follower of Islam - he is slightly on the wrong track already.

So you are not a Sunni or Shiite or Ahmadi or Quranist or Sufi, etc,....
You are simply a "Muslim" and accept all those mentioned above as "Muslims", regardless of sect.

Mohammad would never want sects.

Do you believe that Muhammad's words and deeds are the best guide for all humanity on every issue?

Just tell them to discard their sects and have one voice.

So which "voice" is that? Sunni? Shia? Quranist? Ahmadiyya? Sufi? etc?
And why should the followers of the other sects follow the one you decide is the "true" one?

I hope you find your version of the "truth".

I am not looking for any "truth". There is no "universal truth". There is only best explanations for observable phenomena.

But I hope you are not thinking you created yourself!

Why on earth would you think that?
Have you studied even basic human biology?

You certainly may have created your profile here - so you can tell Muslims that their doctrine was written by 7th century Arabs!

That is what the evidence suggests.
Do you have any evidence that it was authored by an omni-everything god outside of space and time?

At least you acknowledge that it was written in the 7th century. That is a start!

Hold on! That is my claim. I don't need to acknowledge it.
But anywho, so we both accept that the Quran was written in the 7th century. And that the people who recorded it on paper were humans.
So, why do you believe that a supernatural being was involved anywhere? I presented a challenge. Have you responded?
Ooh look, you have! This should be interesting...

Here is one....
[Quran 2:256] Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Do you believe a 7th century Arab will say there is no compulsion in religion? They would rather say the opposite!

Firstly, why do you think that a 7th century Arab could not say that people have a choice in which faith they follow? Seems like a completely reasonable, normal statement - especially if they are trying to get people to change their religion.

Second, If it was the one true god taking about himself and his one true religion, that everyone has to follow or burn in hell, you would think he would be a little more forceful. That he would present compulsive ultimatums like "worship me or be tortured forever!" Or "fight the disbelievers until all religion is for Allah". Or "Enmity and hatred towards disbelievers is a good example to follow until they submit to Islam".
Oh, hold on. He did say exactly that! Many times!

So it seems that your god is contradicting himself. Which is proof he doesn't exist.

So remind me again why 2:256 makes more sense as the work of a omni-everything god who created mankind only to worship him, rather than the work of one or more 7th century Arabs trying to persuade others to follow his new cult?

Also bear in mind the chronology. This verse was revealed during the early years in Medina. Years later, when he had acquired considerable military and political power, the verses became far more belligerent and intolerant. Surprised someone so conversant with the Quran and early Islamic history was not aware of that.

 

[KWED]

For example we can say essence or nature of animals are faily known to us,

Really? Can we?
So what is the "essence of nature", exactly?

because we are a higher level than them due to the power of mind, and thus we can take them to lab, and examine them, study their body and behavior.

Ah, you are talking about their "physical properties".

But we have no access to God, and our mind is not capable of understanding God, hence the essence of God is unknowable to us.

Ok. So we can't understand god in the same way as we can't understand dragons or unicorns. Seems reasonable.

True. When we look at various religions, we see some of their commands or Laws are different with each others. Bahaullah said, this is because the commands of God comes according to requirements and conditions of the people living in an Age and even locations. Hence He tailored the Laws to suit the occasions and situations and conditions.

So there is no universal, objective morality. There is no definite "right or wrong" It all depends on when and where we are.
So owning another human as property is not "wrong" per se, it is only wrong if you live in certain times and places. It other times and places it is "right" and morally acceptable.

I see.

I hope you do.

Yes, in a way Allah and Messenger are one

You have just committed the worst sin in the eyes of Muslims - but they already considered you to be a heretic, so meh.

because we cannot really separate the Sun from its Ray's,

Oh yes we can. Demonstrably.
Please do not attempt to use scientific analogies if you have no understanding of the science involved.

or we cannot separate Light from its lamp. They become One.

You are merely demonstrating your lack of practical, scientific knowledge.

Hence in some verses of Quran, it says, there is no difference between God and His Messenger, likewise Jesus said, I and the Father are One.

So you believe that Muhammad is like the Biblical Jesus?
I suggest you keep your actual, personal details to yourself on here. You never know who might be taking an interest. I can personally attest to threats to my person due to less "blasphemous" posts on religious debate forums.

 

[KWED]

I absolutely disagree with this statement. Nothing...NOTHING can be put on the same pedestal as God! The only thing these kind verses imply is - God and a said messenger are both aligned on the message the messenger delivered. But this doesn't mean messengers to be worshiped, spoken to in prayer etc. Messengers can only request for your pardon. They cannot control the outcome. Putting anyone (including any messengers) on same ground as God - is wrong IMO. But believe what you want. It is your prerogative.

What do you believe should be the penalty for shirk under Islamic law?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So there is no universal, objective morality. There is no definite "right or wrong" It all depends on when and where we are.
So owning another human as property is not "wrong" per se, it is only wrong if you live in certain times and places. It other times and places it is "right" and morally acceptable.

There is objective morality.
Stealing is always wrong. Killing innocent people is always wrong.
Having slaves is always wrong...
But it is not possible for God to make the humanity perfect at once. This is why Revelations of God are progressive. The perfection of the world is a gradual process. It is like evolution. The human civilization is gradually improved through successive revelations from God.
This is why, God sent Abraham, after Noah, and later Moses, and then Jesus... and Buddha and Krishna in other parts of the world. Each were part of the gradual and progressive revelations from God, and each had a mission and a role in this gradual process to create and improve humanity.
It was not possible to completely make slavery vanish once for good in old days, as it was a established way of life of people. Humanity had not reached to a level of perfection to set aside slavery yet. Humanity has to reach to a certain point and once ready, then it become capable of giving a better Revelation and guidance.

So you believe that Muhammad is like the Biblical Jesus?

Yes and No!
In terms of spiritual station, yes, they are one and the same. They were like two identical Mirrors, reflecting the will and words of God to the world. So, in this sense, they are one and the same.
But, literally, they are two individuals.

God is like the Sun, who manifests Himself in the perfect Mirrors (the Messengers), and the rays of the Sun, is how His will and attributes are manifested to the World. We have no access to the Sun, but its Rays reach us. We cannot say, these rays were not part of the Sun, likewise we cannot say, the Spiritual attributes of the Messengers are different than God. Because they are perfect Mirrors reflecting the Rays of the Sun to the world. Hope it is more clear now.

 

[BrightShadow]

I suspect I will be hearing my ACME Irony-o-Meter™ beeping in a minute...

Your irony detection meter is broken! The needle fell off! You need a digital one.

OK. So you are claiming that all 1.8 billion Muslims have the same conclusions about what verses 2:49-2:71 mean.
Really?
You do realise that many millions of Muslims have never even read the Quran?

It is a non issue - even for those who haven't read it. You have turned it into an issue for yourself.

Wow! It gets worse. We have already seen several different opinions here.

If you are searching with a red sunglasses on - everything will look red to you! The ones who joined you are also searching with a goggle with red lenses. They too are seeing everything red.
I am doubtful anyone is sincere!

So when you say "us" and "our", who are you referring to? You and me? That certainly doesn't work. How about you and Hindus. Nah, that doesn't fit either. In fact, most of the religions that there are now, or have ever been, would probably disagree with your definition of "god".

So, what's your definition of God? When I asked if you believe in a creator - your response was the following...

Of course I do. We are all creators. Some people's creations are more widely celebrated than others. Some creations have more social impact than others, but we are all creative in some way.

So, if that is your definition of your creator - then what is your definition of your God (if any)?

Like so many apologists, you just assume that "god" is what you assume it to be. You reject, by default, and version of "god" that does not correspond to yours. A schoolboy error, WADR.

Why do you feel I will reject your God or creator before you even mention anything about him?

To use your (somewhat flawed) analogy, to is like an employer pointing out a potential problem with the production process, and the owner simply rejecting it because the process is "perfect" and cannot have any flaws.

We are not talking about owner, employer or worker of the plant - we are talking about a hostile visitor of the plant whose only intention is to criticize the plant and its workers.
If you sincerely have a suggestion - you could drop your inputs in the suggestion box and move on.

Or perhaps a government official rejecting Edward Jenner's proposal because everyone agrees that smallpox was a curse from god and therefore couldn't be treated.

It seems to me - you are drowning with all the negative thoughts and bad examples with everything you read or come across! It seems you are taking the worse into account and judge someone or something with the worst examples you can find.
For your information - religion has many positive contributions. Religion helped shape the world as we know it.

Like what? Name something practical and beneficial to society that has come from religious belief in the supernatural.

Even though I don't belong to any organized faith systems - I could see their contributions. I could elaborate a little here... Religion helped shape the world as we know it! Religion gives meaning and purpose to life. Religion reinforces social unity and stability. Religion helps as an agent of social control of behavior, promotes psychological well-being and motivates people to work together for positive social change while helping each other for betterment. The world you live in today - religion helped build it, Even the money you use - has "in God we trust" written on it (if you are from USA). Without the "mutual sense of belonging" that different religions have provided for each other through out our history - our ancestral societies might not have had a common bond with each other within their respective societies.
To deny contribution of religion is - to deny contribution of anyone who helped shaped you into the person you have become. But of course - just like you - religion can and does have some drawbacks but you have to look at the overall picture and concentrate on the good.

If something does not make sense, we need to examine it in more detail. If it still makes no sense, we should relegate it to the "unknown" basket. We certainly shouldn't insist that it is true, despite it not making sense.

It doesn't make sense to you and few others. But why are you dragging everyone with you? Everyone is not with you on this!

I didn't say anyone has a "free pass". Even the easiest path to paradise still requires the you first be born into a Muslim family, and second that you don't learn to think outside the box of childhood indoctrination and cultural dogma.

How God will judge is beyond anyone's comprehension or knowledge. Being born into a religion is not the end of the story. I think God has a very good reason how he assigns people at different settings. I am a firm believer that God will take everything into account when judging someone who was exposed to a belief system form birth that is not based on monotheistic. Some information is hinted here and there regarding why and how God decided to put people into different settings. Some people are born into a rich family and some in poor. Some people are born into a developed country and some in a developing country. God has reason behind everything. Not everything is revealed in detail by different messengers because they were busy defending themselves against skeptics and critics. Also information is revealed in a need to know basis! As a result information is scattered among multiple religions .IMO

In what way? Higher standards of tolerance for other people's beliefs and lifestyles?
Higher standards of evidence for their extraordinary claims?
What, exactly?

Anyone can slip into a life of sins - some without conscious thoughts (full knowledge about it) at sometimes. A Muslim who is aware of certain directives regarding a particular sin - may be questioned in a stricter fashion when he indulges in such an offense. That is why I said they could be held on higher standards. For an example - a Muslim who doesn't pray five times a day and doesn't uphold their other four core beliefs and practices of Islam - could be judged on a stricter ground!

Ah, so you are a fan of sectarianism.
So which sect do you belong to, and why is your sect true while the others are false?

You are too quick to come to conclusions. Read something in its entirety before answering or questioning. I have written in my earlier post also that I do not belong to any known organized religion. I am against any sects of any and every religion. If anyone thinks others from his religion have deviated from their said religion - I believe they still should not begin to identify themselves as a sub group and change their denomination. They should not proudly announce that they belong to another sect to distinguish themselves. They should work on their differences and keep sect obsolete!

Does it?
By stating that Islam will fragment into sects, Allah has made that future inevitable.
If he had said in the Quran "Islam will maintain as one, whole undivided group in agreement until judgement day", that would have been what would have happened. Therefore no sects.
Therefore sects are Allah's doing.
QED.

I will disagree with anyone including Muslims that their God advocated in favor of sects. Quran warns against sects (very strictly) but believers of the religion still broke into different sects anyhow! That means they have a freewill to do so. God has given free will and anyone (including Muslims) can do whatever they like while on this earth. So, not all Muslims are Muslims in my eyes. Of course that is my opinion.
Self proclaimed Muslims or anyone in general - is free to choose whatever path they want. They can split into sects, they can put someone on the same or similar pedestal as God - but consequences will be announced on the judgment day. It is not my place to condemn them in any strictest form. I can only point out my conclusions!

So you are not a Sunni or Shiite or Ahmadi or Quranist or Sufi, etc,....
You are simply a "Muslim" and accept all those mentioned above as "Muslims", regardless of sect.

Once again I do not belong to any organized belief system or any sects. I believe God sent many prophets and thus information is scattered among multiple religions. It so happened that (I believe) that Islam has true basis and one of the religion to acquire knowledge from. I do not have a problem acknowledging that Quran was preserved at it was delivered. "Word of mouth" throughout generations cannot make a lie like that. Claim has come through generations that Quran hasn't been altered over the centuries. So, since no source made its way through any generation to contradict that notion - it is fair to say it is not altered.
However, how certain people (including Muslims) are interpreting Quran is another matter!

Second, If it was the one true god taking about himself and his one true religion, that everyone has to follow or burn in hell, you would think he would be a little more forceful. That he would present compulsive ultimatums like "worship me or be tortured forever!" Or "fight the disbelievers until all religion is for Allah". Or "Enmity and hatred towards disbelievers is a good example to follow until they submit to Islam".
Oh, hold on. He did say exactly that! Many times!

So it seems that your god is contradicting himself. Which is proof he doesn't exist.

So remind me again why 2:256 makes more sense as the work of a omni-everything god who created mankind only to worship him, rather than the work of one or more 7th century Arabs trying to persuade others to follow his new cult?

You need a lot more information before coming to your conclusions. But first you need to believe in a creator who created all things including you. Then you need to research and get answers to many more questions such as...
Why are we here in the first place?
Do we have souls?
Why are we sent in our physical body and not in our soul form?
Is this world a learning place or a detention place?
What is the most important thing to a God who may have created us (assuming you already believe a God created you).
Do we have freewill? If so then why do we have it?
Do angels have freewill? (assuming you believe in angels)
Are we required to believe in a devil figure?
How does devil delivers? Is he omni-present?
Why God allowed devil or devil like entity to mess with us?
Any many more...

After researching and understanding the background scenario then you can proceed to your conclusion. I am sure then your conclusion will be different. Without some background knowledge - things won't make a sense.
You can find your own answers. Information is scattered among multiple religions.

I don't believe the God in Islam contradicted himself at all in the Quran. The contradictions you see are just propaganda. Verses are taken out of context and misunderstood for different reasons other than honesty.

 

[KWED]

There is objective morality.

You said...
"When we look at various religions, we see some of their commands or Laws are different with each others. Bahaullah said, this is because the commands of God comes according to requirements and conditions of the people living in an Age and even locations. Hence He tailored the Laws to suit the occasions and situations and conditions."
Under this system, either there is no objective morality, or god decides that some people don't have to follow it - which amounts to the same.

Stealing is always wrong.

Is taking the stuff of people who you beat in a fight "stealing"?

Killing innocent people is always wrong.

You have made this a subjective claim by inserting "innocent". What is "innocent", and who decides it?

Having slaves is always wrong...

And yet god has always allowed it and never stated it is wrong or should be abolished. So it doesn't seem like god thinks slavery is wrong, even if you do.

But it is not possible for God to make the humanity perfect at once. This is why Revelations of God are progressive. The perfection of the world is a gradual process. It is like evolution. The human civilization is gradually improved through successive revelations from God.

The reality is that over the last 1500-2000 years, it is man that has improved morality, not god. In fact, it is despite god that morality has improved.

This is why, God sent Abraham, after Noah, and later Moses, and then Jesus... and Buddha and Krishna in other parts of the world. Each were part of the gradual and progressive revelations from God, and each had a mission and a role in this gradual process to create and improve humanity.

So who should we look to for moral guidance, Buddha or Muhammad? By your argument, Muhammad's teachings should have been an improvement on Buddhas, yet they are clearly more violent and intolerant.

It was not possible to completely make slavery vanish once for good in old days, as it was a established way of life of people.

So was polytheism, but god banned that in one fell swoop.
And why couldn't god have revealed in his various messages that slavery was bad and should be stopped as soon as possible? He made no such suggestions. The impression he gave was that slavery was just fine.

Yes and No!
In terms of spiritual station, yes, they are one and the same. They were like two identical Mirrors, reflecting the will and words of God to the world. So, in this sense, they are one and the same.
But, literally, they are two individuals.

I didn't ask if they were the same person. I asked if Muhammad was like the Biblical Jesus. A divine being. God in human form.

God is like the Sun, who manifests Himself in the perfect Mirrors (the Messengers), and the rays of the Sun, is how His will and attributes are manifested to the World. We have no access to the Sun, but its Rays reach us. We cannot say, these rays were not part of the Sun, likewise we cannot say, the Spiritual attributes of the Messengers are different than God. Because they are perfect Mirrors reflecting the Rays of the Sun to the world. Hope it is more clear now.

Clear as mud.
Is it impossible for Baha'is to talk in something other than vague platitudes?

 

[Link]

Religion was used to justify slavery. I don't believe God ever allowed slavery as the hadith from Imam Ali (a) says, from Adam (a) till now, no one is born a slave (to other humans) and everyone is born free. As Imam Reda (a) emphasized when slaves were separated from the crowd, Imam (a) took opportunity to emphasize we are in fact slaves of God similar to how Musa (a) emphasized to Pharaoh that they are slaves of God and not to Pharaoh and his people.

And right hand possession has two forms: marriage (we own each other, are sexually imprisoned to one another and can't have sex or flirt with people we don't have right hand possession and authority over) and Muta. Muta is said to be for those who fear God's curse and who are in a situation where they can't get married, but patience better while marriage is the ideal.

One place right hand possession is said in terms of orphans, but this is not of a sexual type, but that they must obey those who have authority over them, that's all. The rest of Quran when using this term means marriage and muta, and since marriage usually is emphasized a long side of it and it's used with "or", it's primarly about Muta.

And as for why sex outside marriage and Muta is condemned, it's because:

(1) taking responsibility over raising children
(2) Keeping the family unit as a norm
(3) Marriage is pledge from the married, but also society is to respect the relationship and not seek to steal either husband or wife.

There is people in open relationships and open "marriages", and so this confuses everything, but Islamically, marriage has a lot to do, with respecting two people and not making it easy to divorce and leave children, for either a man or a woman but preserve family unit.

Muta is understood silently to try not to make children (pull out), but if it happens, then marriage can be expanded to or if they really can't be together or really don't want to be, then at least, the child knows the father and the father is financial responsible over the child and for raising him and can't run away. Why emphasize on father? Because a woman loves their child too much (exceptions happen, taking generally) then to not participate in their life but a man might want to escape...

Muta is mustahab (loved by God) if and only if one is desperate and fears curse of God (falling into severe sin). Otherwise many hadiths forbid it to certain people or make it makruh (hated) at the least.

Marriage is ideal and what is to be sought after and half of Islam is said to be marriage.

 

[KWED]

It is a non issue - even for those who haven't read it. You have turned it into an issue for yourself.

It is also a non-issue for me.
However, you claimed that all 1.8 billion Muslims hold the same interpretation of that passage. Glad to see you are now back pedalling.

If you are searching with a red sunglasses on - everything will look red to you! The ones who joined you are also searching with a goggle with red lenses. They too are seeing everything red.
I am doubtful anyone is sincere!

So basically you are saying that anyone with a different opinion to you is subject to bias, but you are not?
Gosh!

So, what's your definition of God? When I asked if you believe in a creator - your response was the following...
So, if that is your definition of your creator -

I don't have "a creator" (unless you are referring to my parents).
I was just explaining what "creator" means.

then what is your definition of your God (if any)?

I don't have a definition of god. However, different religionists from different religions will have different definitions of god. When I discuss god with them, I will use their definition.
What is yours?

Why do you feel I will reject your God or creator before you even mention anything about him?

Just to be clear, I have neither a god nor a "creator". My point was that you reject other versions of god by default, because they are not your god. Presumably you would assert that Vishnu and Waheguru and Zeus and Odin and Quetzalcoatl don't exist. Or do you accept them as valid versions of god?

We are not talking about owner, employer or worker of the plant - we are talking about a hostile visitor of the plant whose only intention is to criticize the plant and its workers.
If you sincerely have a suggestion - you could drop your inputs in the suggestion box and move on.

Do you need a hand with those goalposts? They look heavy.
The exact words you used were... "Think of an owner of a manufacturing company with 6,236 workers - should he shut down the company if one of his workers comes up to him and say something he didn't understand?"

It seems to me - you are drowning with all the negative thoughts and bad examples with everything you read or come across! It seems you are taking the worse into account and judge someone or something with the worst examples you can find.
For your information - religion has many positive contributions.

Not sure how this addresses the analogy I used. Want to have another go?

Also, I call your argument there the "Jimmy Savile defence". IOW, we should overlook the bad because of the good. If something is bad, all the good in the world cannot save it from valid criticism.

Religion helped shape the world as we know it.

Indeed it did. Much of the conflict and intolerance we see is due to religious dogma.
I don't think there is any positive from religion that cannot be achieved by secular means. You might be able to think of something?

I have stuff to do now but I shall return!

 

[BrightShadow]

It is also a non-issue for me.
However, you claimed that all 1.8 billion Muslims hold the same interpretation of that passage. Glad to see you are now back pedalling.

It is a non-issue for you? So, you got it? Good!
Or maybe you finally realized that - it is not that an important issue to point out and discuss because every Muslim who will ever read this - will never think twice that there is anything wrong in the manner it is written. I already pointed out to you - it is the ACT that is emphasized here through the example of the past.
The ACT of past Jews and acts of 7th century remained identical. So, such ACTS that were similar in nature were discouraged. So, it is the ACTS that is criticized. You have been unnecessarily trying to show that Jews from the 7th century were blamed for the deeds of other Jews from centuries ago. But that is not the case because following verses clarified that. So, what is the problem?

The rest of the discussion is just getting fruitless!

 

[KWED]

It is a non-issue for you? So, you got it? Good!
Or maybe you finally realized that - it is not that an important issue to point out and discuss because every Muslim who will ever read this - will never think twice that there is anything wrong in the manner it is written. I already pointed out to you - it is the ACT that is emphasized here through the example of the past.
The ACT of past Jews and acts of 7th century remained identical. So, such ACTS that were similar in nature were discouraged. So, it is the ACTS that is criticized. You have been unnecessarily trying to show that Jews from the 7th century were blamed for the deeds of other Jews from centuries ago. But that is not the case because following verses clarified that. So, what is the problem?

The rest of the discussion is just getting fruitless!

You are still missing the point the OP was making. That the way that passages are written snows a contradictory narrative perspective.
There are many such inconsistencies and contradictions in the Quran.

 

[BrightShadow]

You are still missing the point the OP was making. That the way that passages are written snows a contradictory narrative perspective.
There are many such inconsistencies and contradictions in the Quran.

And you are missing the point that there is nothing wrong with that! People understood!
You will need to learn a language to understand how the flow of conversation proceeds in that said language and how thoughts are combined. It could be different than what you are used to. Things do get lost in translation.
Also sometimes repetitions are needed to create a calm and soothing effect. Almost like a poetry!
In the original language (I don't speak Arabic) - it sounds very soothing to me. Try listening to it sometimes if you have never.

Also - you cannot just take a verse out of context and start analyzing it. You have to see the context and incidents surrounding the time it was revealed and the reason for it. Ask some Muslim scholar - they will give you the details. Only then you will understand!
With no background in the language, not enough knowledge regarding the social and cultural aspects of the said timeline - it is not smart to come to worse conclusion. Give benefit of your doubts. Not the other way around!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You said...
"When we look at various religions, we see some of their commands or Laws are different with each others. Bahaullah said, this is because the commands of God comes according to requirements and conditions of the people living in an Age and even locations. Hence He tailored the Laws to suit the occasions and situations and conditions."
Under this system, either there is no objective morality, or god decides that some people don't have to follow it - which amounts to the same.

Is taking the stuff of people who you beat in a fight "stealing"?

You have made this a subjective claim by inserting "innocent". What is "innocent", and who decides it?

It is always possible to make the Laws better and more fair. But this is a gradual process. The improvement is only possible step by step.
If we think of the entire humanity as a person who was born, and went through stages of development and growth, it is like a child who has to go through grades of schooling. Until the child has not finished grade one, he is not ready yet for grade two and so forth.
God has created this world as a school. There are lessons in it, and there is guidance coming to it from God from time to time. Whenever humanity has completed a grade in this schooling process, it becomes ready for the next grade teachings from God.
So, when you look at old religions, you see some of their laws and ordinances are not much useful. This is because they were suitable for their own time, for the people of those days.
This is like if you look at grade one books of school and say, these are so elementary. But those were to make them ready, for grade two. So, is the religions and successive revelations. Their purpose is to make humanity ready for yet another revelation.

And yet god has always allowed it and never stated it is wrong or should be abolished. So it doesn't seem like god thinks slavery is wrong, even if you do.

No, in Bahai Faith which is a newer Revelation it is completely and clearly disallowed. I quote from Kitabi Aghdas:

"It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet…. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bondslaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him."


Bahá’u’lláh's Abolition of Slavery - Beyond Foreignness

The reality is that over the last 1500-2000 years, it is man that has improved morality, not god. In fact, it is despite god that morality has improved.

When we look at history, we see, everytime a Manifestation of God appeared, such as Muhammad, there appeared a golden time, where we see it caused great advancements in science and civilization. Of course every Religion has its own set time, when it does not give fruits anymore.
In this world everything which is created by God has a set time, after which that thing dies. Religion is no different. It is like a good Tree. In its due time it gives its fruits. When it gets too old, no longer can provide benefits. At that time God, renews the Religion, with a new set of Laws which are better than before for a new Age.

So who should we look to for moral guidance, Buddha or Muhammad? By your argument, Muhammad's teachings should have been an improvement on Buddhas, yet they are clearly more violent and intolerant.

In my view, Both of them were for older times. Not for our time.

So was polytheism, but god banned that in one fell swoop.
And why couldn't god have revealed in his various messages that slavery was bad and should be stopped as soon as possible? He made no such suggestions. The impression he gave was that slavery was just fine.

In my understanding it was not possible to abolish slavery at once before. So, instead of abolishing it, Quran emphasized on treating slaves fairly. Again the Revelations of God, are meant to build on previous Revelations and bring humanity to another stage.

I didn't ask if they were the same person. I asked if Muhammad was like the Biblical Jesus. A divine being. God in human form.

Yes, Muhammad is a Manifestation of God, just as Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

Clear as mud.
Is it impossible for Baha'is to talk in something other than vague platitudes?

Hmmmm, I don't know why you say this.